111
111
Dec 4, 2012
12/12
by
CNNW
tv
eye 111
favorite 0
quote 0
taxes and spending. what is an agreement that both sides can say yes, we each gave a little? >> the republicans must agree to higher tax rates on well off americans. all the way to the 39.6 that the president, they have to. that's the ticket for admission because the president won the election and campaigned on that. the democrats are going to have to agree. they'll use euphemisms, but agree to cutting medicare and medicaid. and by the way, that means cutting for seniors and poor people and special needs kids. that is not an easy thing to ask anybody to do, let alone the democratic party. which really created these programs. this is going to be awful and gruesome, but 70 for 60 in your poll, 60% of americans want to raise taxes on well off americans. 70% don't want to cut or 80, don't want to cut medicare or medicaid, so the hard stuff is coming. this is the easy stuff. we can't even get the republicans to agree to that. >> we're out of time guys, nice to talk to you as always. i appreciate it. >>> next,
taxes and spending. what is an agreement that both sides can say yes, we each gave a little? >> the republicans must agree to higher tax rates on well off americans. all the way to the 39.6 that the president, they have to. that's the ticket for admission because the president won the election and campaigned on that. the democrats are going to have to agree. they'll use euphemisms, but agree to cutting medicare and medicaid. and by the way, that means cutting for seniors and poor people...
231
231
Dec 5, 2012
12/12
by
CNNW
tv
eye 231
favorite 0
quote 0
that is 98% of the american people, getting about 80% of this tax cut shouldn't have their taxes raised. so my suggestion -- it was delivered, by the way, in private and leaked and put in public. but that's fine. i mean, it's certainly what i said. my suggestion was let's take the one area that we agree and take it off the table. >> and -- but just to be clear, though, you actually think -- because this is when i saw your comment what i was so curious about, just from a negotiating standpoint. we had the super committee that failed, now we have the fiscal cliff, right? and if those sorts of deadlines aren't enough to get a deal, if you actually were -- were going to break with your own party or say go ahead, we'll extend them for the middle class, do you actually think that you would be able to negotiate a deal where they didn't go up on the top 2% at the beginning of the year? >> you might be able to negotiate that deal. again, i think a lot of people misunderstand, you know, what's happening with the 98%. number one, i don't think you ever ought to use the american people as, quote, l
that is 98% of the american people, getting about 80% of this tax cut shouldn't have their taxes raised. so my suggestion -- it was delivered, by the way, in private and leaked and put in public. but that's fine. i mean, it's certainly what i said. my suggestion was let's take the one area that we agree and take it off the table. >> and -- but just to be clear, though, you actually think -- because this is when i saw your comment what i was so curious about, just from a negotiating...
188
188
Dec 7, 2012
12/12
by
CNNW
tv
eye 188
favorite 0
quote 0
what that really means is all tax rates on all americans go back up because the tax rates were brought down in 2001 and 2003. i don't support that. i don't think that's a great idea. it would slow down the economy. >> when you look at economist's evaluations, it would slouw dow the economy. it would. there's no question about it. but if the problem is that we have a lot of debt and there has to be some pain whether it be in cuts or the form of higher tax revenues, it means there has to be some pain. $2.8 trillion. that's 17% of our debt wiped out overnight. if you're worried about the debt, how can't you look at that seriously? >> well, the reason i would say it's not going to be 17% of our debt on that because right now, we're running a trillion dollar deficit year single year. if we went back to zero, we're rebalanced. right now with the fourth year in a row, that deficit and debt continues to climb. so it doesn't really wipe it out and the challenge of it is what does that do to the overall economy. we're not just dealing with one tax increase as well. a lot of people lose track of
what that really means is all tax rates on all americans go back up because the tax rates were brought down in 2001 and 2003. i don't support that. i don't think that's a great idea. it would slow down the economy. >> when you look at economist's evaluations, it would slouw dow the economy. it would. there's no question about it. but if the problem is that we have a lot of debt and there has to be some pain whether it be in cuts or the form of higher tax revenues, it means there has to be...
62
62
tv
eye 62
favorite 0
quote 0
raising taxes would. there's no question about it, but if the problem is that we have a lot of debt and there has to be some pain, whether in cuts or the form of higher tax revenues, that means there has to be pain. look at the math. $2.8 trillion to go back to the clinton era rates. that's 17% of debt wiped out overnight. if you're worried about the debt, how can't you look at that seriously? >> the reason i would say it's not 17% of our debt because right now we have a trillion dollar deficit every single year. if we went back to zero, that's true. right now with fourth year in a row with over a trillion dollars in deficit spending, that deficit and debt continues it to climb. it doesn't wipe it out. what does it do to the overall economy. we're not just dealing with one tax increase right now. the affordable care act actually begin on january 1st as well for people making $200,000 or more or people with large medical bills. that already starts coming up. this is an additional tax increase on top of tha
raising taxes would. there's no question about it, but if the problem is that we have a lot of debt and there has to be some pain, whether in cuts or the form of higher tax revenues, that means there has to be pain. look at the math. $2.8 trillion to go back to the clinton era rates. that's 17% of debt wiped out overnight. if you're worried about the debt, how can't you look at that seriously? >> the reason i would say it's not 17% of our debt because right now we have a trillion dollar...
112
112
Dec 6, 2012
12/12
by
CNNW
tv
eye 112
favorite 0
quote 0
means everybody's taxes go up, but if the president has his way, taxes are going to go up on those very wealthy folks making over 200,000, but most are small businesses filing a subchapter s companies, about 88% of net small business income will be for these taxes when we're depending on them to create two-thirds of the new jobs. boehner's trying to mitigate that mess. i wish him luck. something's going to f to have to give. >> from everything i've heard is that we are realistically, there's two options for country. one, go over the cliff. the other, extend the bush tax cuts for the 98% of americans. everyone who makes under $200,000 a year if they're single. those seem to be the two choices. between those, which do you pick? >> but, if we do that and raise the taxes on those small businesses we were just talking about, according to the congressional budget office, that's going to be about 200,000 american families are going to be out of work next year and that's the low estimate. young is estimating about 700,000 more unemployed. that's a lot of hurt for the middle class, so this is a
means everybody's taxes go up, but if the president has his way, taxes are going to go up on those very wealthy folks making over 200,000, but most are small businesses filing a subchapter s companies, about 88% of net small business income will be for these taxes when we're depending on them to create two-thirds of the new jobs. boehner's trying to mitigate that mess. i wish him luck. something's going to f to have to give. >> from everything i've heard is that we are realistically,...
139
139
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
CNNW
tv
eye 139
favorite 0
quote 0
it comes down to tax rates. this is a huge sticking point in the stalled negotiations between the president and mr. boehner. obama says the top rate on household income above $250,000 should rise from 35% to 39.6%. boehner wants the rate to stay at 35% or even lower. but what about meeting in the middle? around 37%? listen carefully to the speaker when he was asked today whether that rate could be the answer to this impasse. >> there are a lot of things that are possible. to put the revenue the president seeks on the table. but none of it's going to be possible if the president insists on his position. insists on my way or the highway. >> you hear what he said? a lot of things are possible. that may not sound like much where you're from, but here in washington, it sounds suspiciously like code for we're making progress. more evidence boehner's democratic counterpart house minority leader nancy pelosi also seems to be softening her language as we head into the weekend. listen. >> what we want to do is protect the
it comes down to tax rates. this is a huge sticking point in the stalled negotiations between the president and mr. boehner. obama says the top rate on household income above $250,000 should rise from 35% to 39.6%. boehner wants the rate to stay at 35% or even lower. but what about meeting in the middle? around 37%? listen carefully to the speaker when he was asked today whether that rate could be the answer to this impasse. >> there are a lot of things that are possible. to put the...
188
188
Dec 4, 2012
12/12
by
CNNW
tv
eye 188
favorite 0
quote 0
you said, i'm all for the wealthy paying more taxes. so i'm curious, since you've said that, why the reduck tans to just raise the tax rate on the wealthy? >> it destroys growth of the very people who are going to create additional revenues in the future. >> why say you would be all for it? >> i didn't ever say -- not one timedy say i was for raising tax rates on the wealthy. i said i was for increasing the taxes that the wealthy paid. how you do it will have a major impact on the economic fortunes of this country. and if you take the vast majority of small businessmen who will be hit with an increased tax rate, you're going to markedly decrease the job creation and capital formation in this country. >> let me ask you another question, one of the things we talked about on both sides, i think it's fair to say is the lack of details. and second geithner was out trying to defend some of the details in his plan over the weekend. this letter also has very few details. i'm curious to know exactly what loopholes, what deductions would you kill
you said, i'm all for the wealthy paying more taxes. so i'm curious, since you've said that, why the reduck tans to just raise the tax rate on the wealthy? >> it destroys growth of the very people who are going to create additional revenues in the future. >> why say you would be all for it? >> i didn't ever say -- not one timedy say i was for raising tax rates on the wealthy. i said i was for increasing the taxes that the wealthy paid. how you do it will have a major impact on...